› › ›

No Time To Die: Production Diary

1…10171018102010221023…2507

Comments

  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,619
    deleted
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The idea of a Jinx spin-off still gives me cold sweats. The worst Bond girl of all with her own movie.

    To be fair the script that P&W wrote for it has a good rep, and they used some ideas from it in Casino Royale - the original Jinx script is supposed to be more in the tone of CR rather than DAD.

    Which proves the point of other users. Why even bother making a spin off movie about another 00 agent or a Bond girl when you can turn it into a Bond movie?
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    Walecs wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The idea of a Jinx spin-off still gives me cold sweats. The worst Bond girl of all with her own movie.

    To be fair the script that P&W wrote for it has a good rep, and they used some ideas from it in Casino Royale - the original Jinx script is supposed to be more in the tone of CR rather than DAD.

    Which proves the point of other users. Why even bother making a spin off movie about another 00 agent or a Bond girl when you can turn it into a Bond movie?

    Exactly, I quite agree.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The idea of a Jinx spin-off still gives me cold sweats. The worst Bond girl of all with her own movie.

    To be fair the script that P&W wrote for it has a good rep, and they used some ideas from it in Casino Royale - the original Jinx script is supposed to be more in the tone of CR rather than DAD.

    Yeah, but her character and performance is beyond appalling.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The idea of a Jinx spin-off still gives me cold sweats. The worst Bond girl of all with her own movie.

    To be fair the script that P&W wrote for it has a good rep, and they used some ideas from it in Casino Royale - the original Jinx script is supposed to be more in the tone of CR rather than DAD.

    Yeah, but her character and performance is beyond appalling.

    Yes, in DAD.
  • moneyofpropre2moneyofpropre2 France
    Posts: 859
    Hope one day the script of Jinx came to the surface. Would be very interresting to read it...
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Yeah I've always been very interested in that because of the rumours about a lot of it making it into CR. I think the reason it wouldn't have worked though is because as @RC7 pointed out, Jinx was badly written and badly acted. There's no guarantee that Halle Berry could have carried the movie even with a good script (weird because she's been good in other stuff, I do like her, I guess she's just miscast as the sassy action hero).

    I actually really like the concept of Jinx as a character (female Bond in every way, not just as a spy but also in terms of seduction, cringey lines, etc). But she's one of the least interesting Bond girls for a spinoff for that very reason imo. A female James Bond in a Bond film is a potentially fun dynamic (although horrifically executed in DAD). But on her own? You'd just be wondering why you're not watching a Bond film.

    I can't think of any Bond girls that could have carried a spinoff film to be fair. A handful of villains (I could have definitely gone for a Scaramanga spinoff for example or a Bond/Trevelayn buddy movie prequel, although again wouldn't have wanted these to actually happen because of the risk of diluting the brand) but no Bond girls.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Yeah I've always been very interested in that because of the rumours about a lot of it making it into CR. I think the reason it wouldn't have worked though is because as @RC7 pointed out, Jinx was badly written and badly acted. There's no guarantee that Halle Berry could have carried the movie even with a good script (weird because she's been good in other stuff, I do like her, I guess she's just miscast as the sassy action hero).

    I actually really like the concept of Jinx as a character (female Bond in every way, not just as a spy but also in terms of seduction, cringey lines, etc). But she's one of the least interesting Bond girls for a spinoff for that very reason imo. A female James Bond in a Bond film is a potentially fun dynamic (although horrifically executed in DAD). But on her own? You'd just be wondering why you're not watching a Bond film.

    I can't think of any Bond girls that could have carried a spinoff film to be fair. A handful of villains (I could have definitely gone for a Scaramanga spinoff for example or a Bond/Trevelayn buddy movie prequel, although again wouldn't have wanted these to actually happen because of the risk of diluting the brand) but no Bond girls.

    If you look at marketing material for every (pretty much) Bond film between TSWLM and DAD they were always emphasising the whole 'the Bond girl is Bond's match' schtick.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    True but usually that just meant the girl was a spy like Bond, and they didn't bother to flesh them out beyond that. Jinx actually had a lot of Bond's character traits as well, so I think there was real potential there for a fun relationship between them, but they messed up badly.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think the whole Jinx idea may have been a follow on from the producers wanting to have some diversity in their lineup of films. Halle had the Oscar by then too, so it could have been decent marketing. Sadly for her, she did the even more rubbish Catwoman shortly thereafter and further ruined her reputation.

    I can imagine that Babs and Co. are looking at the current crop of female heroines with some interest. They were perhaps ahead of the curve with the idea way back when (it started with Wai Lin I believe), but I'm glad it never came to fruition for obvious reasons (neither she nor Jinx were strong enough characters imho, despite ticking diversity boxes).
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think the whole Jinx idea may have been a follow on from the producers wanting to have some diversity in their lineup of films. Halle had the Oscar by then too, so it could have been decent marketing. Sadly for her, she did the even more rubbish Catwoman shortly thereafter and further ruined her reputation.

    I can imagine that Babs and Co. are looking at the current crop of female heroines with some interest. They were perhaps ahead of the curve with the idea way back when (it started with Wai Lin I believe), but I'm glad it never came to fruition for obvious reasons (neither she nor Jinx were strong enough characters imho, despite ticking diversity boxes).

    Yes, it's interesting that originally they had the idea of Wai Lin returning in DAD.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    How soon do we think now that a decision will be made? Especially seeing now Apple and Amazon have entered the contest. This year or next year?
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    How soon do we think now that a decision will be made? Especially seeing now Apple and Amazon have entered the contest. This year or next year?

    I have no idea, not involved with the negotiations ...
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?

    Hahaha that's what I said a long time ago.



  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?

    Hahaha that's what I said a long time ago.



    I would not have a problem with WB taking over distribution.
  • CatchingBulletsCatchingBullets facebook.com/catchingbullets
    edited September 2017 Posts: 292
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Dennison wrote: »
    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26
    yes
    Dennison wrote: »
    with Tom Hardy as Bond?
    no
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    IF the whole package for rights is on offer, then Amazon and Apple with have a master spreasheet giving projections of revenue in all of the existing and possible areas of sales, projected in both the short and long term. Boy, I would love to see those.
  • DennisonDennison
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,031
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,847
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?


    I am fine with that.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?


    I am fine with that.

    Hardy would be a real dealbreaker for me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.
  • DennisonDennison
    edited September 2017 Posts: 1,031
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.

    Precisely. Never said anything to the contrary. The comment I was responding to was referring to to all cinema production not just Eon.
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2017 Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.

    Precisely. Never said anything to the contrary. The comment I was responding to was referring to to all cinema production not just Eon.

    I think what @CatchingBullets is referring to is the fact that production cycles for most franchise films are 3+ years. They don't make a movie every year, they have staggered productions running concurrently that each swallow up more than two years of pre-production, production and post.

    For example - Johnson was in talks for Episode VIII in around April 2014 and was officially confirmed Aug 2014. By the time that films hits you'll be looking at 3 1/2 - 4 years of commitment from development thru production and release.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.

    Precisely. Never said anything to the contrary. The comment I was responding to was referring to to all cinema production not just Eon.

    I think what @CatchingBullets is referring to is the fact that production cycles for most franchise films are 3+ years. They don't make a movie every year, they have staggered productions running concurrently that each swallow up more than two years of pre-production, production and post.

    Don't agree.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.

    Precisely. Never said anything to the contrary. The comment I was responding to was referring to to all cinema production not just Eon.

    I think what @CatchingBullets is referring to is the fact that production cycles for most franchise films are 3+ years. They don't make a movie every year, they have staggered productions running concurrently that each swallow up more than two years of pre-production, production and post.

    Don't agree.

    I'm not sure how you can disagree with facts.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    CatchingBullets wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce However, if in the (near) future EON decide that they have enough time, money and energy to make 'Double-0 Agents' spinoff in between the regular Bond films, because the Bond brand is 'under exploited', than it triggers an important question you can see coming a mile way: Why not simply go back to 2 years schedule for Bond films? No-one can tell me it's a better idea that EON should produce spinoffs in between the 4 year gaps between official Bond films instead of just making Bond films on a regular 2 year cycles if they are really keen on making more films.

    Bond, cinema and cinema production does not operate in those every two year cycles anymore. This is down to pure and simple physical and creative practicalities and an evolution and proliferation of other titles jostling for attention.

    Unless you're Star Wars and Marvel? Not sure how you can say that when most franchises are actually releasing films on a yearly basis, if not more than that in one year! There will be 12 Marvel films between 2017 and 2019. Between Spectre and Bond 25 there will have been 6 Star Wars films. Not sure your argument stands up.

    But for the record I understand why a 3-4 year cycle may be preferable for Bond given this kind of landscape.

    Marvel and Lucasfilm are effectively their own studios, employing thousands of people. EON is an independent production company employing about 20+ people.

    Precisely. Never said anything to the contrary. The comment I was responding to was referring to to all cinema production not just Eon.

    I think what @CatchingBullets is referring to is the fact that production cycles for most franchise films are 3+ years. They don't make a movie every year, they have staggered productions running concurrently that each swallow up more than two years of pre-production, production and post.

    Don't agree.

    I'm not sure how you can disagree with facts.

    Touche.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    This year I would imagine.
    WB are still in the lead atm.

    So, Chris Nolan to direct Bond 26 with Tom Hardy as Bond?


    I am fine with that.

    Hardy would be a real dealbreaker for me.

    In that you want him to be Bond or you don't,matey ?

Sign In or Register to comment.